Notes On The Recent Election
Is civics still taught in school?
The news and social media have been saturated with images of people losing their minds because the person who won the election is not the one they wanted. Some were crying and stamping their feet like spoiled children. Others shouted out profanity and used threatening language.
There is a reason you vote alone in a curtained booth. After being educated about the people and issues on the ballot, you make your uncoerced mark to choose what you believe (yeah, democracy at work) are the best choices for you, your family, and your community.
If we were exposed to all of the ideas in society and had access to all of the information we needed to make those choices, we would not be shocked by the election's outcomes. Debate, discussion, exposure to information (both true and false), and freedom of expression offer opportunities to let off steam like a valve on a steam engine. We learn as we communicate and might change our minds based on new information or perspectives. Education should teach us how to behave as citizens in a society of free people. Thus, democracy and education are not passive endeavors.
Seeing how badly people behave when they have lost a fair contest makes one ask, is sportsmanship dead? But, of course, when everyone was told over and over again that THIS election was the most important thing to ever happen on every mainstream channel, I was sort of surprised that I did not see people leaping off of tall buildings and bridges.
With the ubiquitous use of personal phones allowing instant access to the Internet, our society has been changed. Now, people post the most personal information for all to see and demand all to approve and accept.
This has fractured our sense of community.
Almost overnight, everyone is expected to comply with everyone else’s personal habits, pronouns, identity, and preferences, even under the threat of arrest or job loss.
For example, I like broccoli. I like it with cheese. I post this information online and subscribe to a group called ¨The Broccoli Eaters¨. Some people do not like broccoli. These people confront us broccoli eaters and call us names, threaten to beat us up and tell us we are stupid. We feel the need to protect our rights and call for laws against the persecution of broccoli eaters.
Years ago, everyone was just a vegetable eater, and no one got into all the different personal tastes and preferences. We could sit at a table and eat with others who only liked carrots or peas. We used to have a community of people who loved food. We used to have more common and shared experiences.
Now, we are in separate groups based on our personally chosen preferences. We eat alone. This is all reinforced by social media, news coverage, government mandates, and public policy.
We want everyone to eat broccoli, like broccoli. We force our small children to eat broccoli, even people who might be allergic. We bully and threaten anyone who disagrees with us.
We constantly post photos of broccoli on social media.
There are two fundamental problems.
1.     We use the Internet and make public our most personal information.
The food I eat with family, the jokes I share with friends, and my personal habits are not necessarily shared, appreciated, or accepted by the society around me. That is why we have private lives. That is why our privacy is considered a human right. That is why we should guard and protect it.
2.     We expect (unreasonably) everyone to appreciate, accept, like, and praise that personal information.
So, is it surprising that the broccoli people voted for someone very different from who the carrot people wanted and are now furious in a society where no one knows how to conduct a civilized debate? Most people do not know how to communicate with other people anymore. Even young children are becoming embedded in a phone or tablet, and young adults have difficulties with interpersonal communication.
Does anyone still understand what living in a society or community entails? Is it time to learn?
civics /sÄv′Äks/
noun
The branch of political science that deals with civic affairs and the rights and duties of citizens.
The science of civil government.
The study of good citizenship and proper membership in a community.
society /sÉ™-sī′Ä-tÄ“/
noun
The totality of people regarded as forming a community of interdependent individuals.
"working for the benefit of society."
A group of people broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture.
"rural society; literary society."
An organization or association of persons engaged in a common profession, activity, or interest.
"a folklore society; a society of bird watchers."
privacy /prī′və-sē/
noun
The quality or condition of being secluded from the presence or view of others.
"I need some privacy to change into my bathing suit."
The state of being free from public attention or unsanctioned intrusion.
"a person's right to privacy."
Right to Privacy in the United States
The United States Constitution does not contain any explicit right to privacy. However, The Bill of Rights expresses the concerns of James Madison along with other framers of the Constitution for protecting certain aspects of privacy.
For example, the first amendment allows the privacy of beliefs, the third amendment protects the privacy of the home against any demands to be used to house soldiers, the fourth amendment protects the privacy of a person and possessions from unreasonable searches, and the 5th Amendment gives the privacy of personal information through preventing self-incrimination.
Furthermore, the 9th Amendment says that the enumeration of certain rights as found in the Bill of Rights cannot deny other rights of the people. While this is a vague statement, court precedent has said that the 9th amendment is a way to justify looking at the Bill of Rights as a way to protect the right to privacy in a specific way not given in the first 8 amendments.
The issue of whether the Constitution actually protects the right to privacy in ways not described in the Bill of Rights is a controversial subject. Originalists often argue that there is no general right to privacy within the constitution. However, as early as 1923 the Supreme Court, recognized through decisions, that the liberty given in the 14th amendment guarantees a relatively broad right of privacy in regards to procreation, child-rearing, marriage, and medical treatment termination.
Two decisions by the Supreme Court during the 1920s solidified this view of the 14th amendment. They found the liberty clause of the 14th amendment to prohibit the states from trying to interfere with the private decisions of parents and educators when shaping the children’s education. During the case Meyer v Nebraska in 1923, the Supreme Court said that a state law that did not allow the teaching of German or other foreign languages to students before the ninth grade was unconstitutional.
The issue of the right to privacy regained momentum in the 1960s during Griswold v Connecticut where the Supreme Court said that the state law prohibiting the sale, distribution, possession, and contraceptives to couples who were married was unconstitutional. There were different reasons for this based on the judge, whether it was the gray area of the law or the zone of privacy created by the Bill of Rights.
In 1969, the court ruled on Stanley v Georgia in a unanimous decision staying that an individual had the right to privacy to have and watch pornography, even if the pornography could potentially be the basis for any prosecution against the distributor or manufacturer. The opinion stated that the State could not tell a person who was in his own home what movies he could watch or what books he could read.
More recently, the Supreme Court has acknowledged the right to privacy. For example, in the 1990 case Cruzan v Missouri Department of Health, the Court found that individuals had the right to make their own decisions about terminating medical treatments that were life-prolonging. Another case was Lawrence v Texas in 2003 where a sodomy law in Texas that prohibited homosexual sodomy was struck down by the Supreme Court.